PDA

View Full Version : Bush has to raise debt ceiling....again


the Talking Can
10-15-2004, 04:42 PM
This is fiscal sanity? Sweet.

link, you have to register though (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/politics/15debt.html?pagewanted=all)

As U.S. Debt Ceiling Is Reached, Bush Administration Seeks to Raise It Once Again
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Published: October 15, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 - Less than a day after President Bush implied that Senator John Kerry lacked "fiscal sanity," the Bush administration said on Thursday that the federal government had hit the debt ceiling set by Congress and would have to borrow from the civil service retirement system until after the elections.

Federal operations are unlikely to be affected because Congress is certain to raise the debt limit in a lame-duck session in November. Congressional Republicans had wanted to avoid an embarrassing vote to raise the debt ceiling just a few weeks before Election Day.

Since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001, the federal debt has increased about 40 percent, or $2.1 trillion, to $7.4 trillion. Congress has raised the debt ceiling three times in three years, raising it most recently by $984 billion in May 2003.

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said that the federal government was about to breach the limit again and would be able to keep operating only if it started tapping money intended for the civil service retirement fund, the pension system for federal workers.

"Given current projections, it is imperative that the Congress take action to increase the debt limit by mid-November,'' Mr. Snow warned in a statement, declaring that his arsenal of financial tools "will be exhausted'' at that point.

The announcement came a few days after Congress adjourned and one day after Mr. Bush battled Mr. Kerry over economic and social policy in their final televised debate.

In that debate, Mr. Bush accused Mr. Kerry of proposing major new programs without the money to pay for them. "My opponent talks about fiscal sanity,'' the president said. "His record in the United States Senate does not match his rhetoric.''

White House officials and Congressional leaders knew for at least two months that federal borrowing would soon exceed the legal limit. Mr. Snow warned on Aug. 2 that the ceiling would soon be reached, asking lawmakers to raise the limit then.

Senate Republicans tried to insert an increase in borrowing authority into a military spending bill this summer, but were blocked by Democrats and a handful of Republican lawmakers who sought tougher restrictions on spending increases and tax cuts. As the election season moved into the final phase, Congressional leaders tacitly agreed to address the issue, along with about 10 unfinished spending bills, in a session after the November elections.

Representative John W. Spratt of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said the ballooning federal debt reflected Mr. Bush's failure at fiscal responsibility and stemmed in large measure from his three big tax cuts.

"This is the burden Republicans are passing on to the next generation, and they have no plan or prospect for addressing it,'' Mr. Spratt said.

Administration officials cast the latest news in the most positive possible light, reporting in a separate announcement that the official federal budget deficit for the 2004 fiscal year was $413 billion. That is lower than the $522 billion shortfall the administration predicted at the start of this year, though still the biggest federal budget deficit on record.

"We will continue to see improvement and cut the deficit by more than half in five years,'' Joshua B. Bolten, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, said in a statement.

Outside analysts are skeptical of that goal, in part because administration budget forecasts omit future costs of the war in Iraq.

In its most recent projection, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that budget deficits would remain at more than $300 billion a year for at least the next five years if Mr. Bush's tax cuts were all extended and even if the costs of the Iraq war ended after next year.

Mr. Bush has often declared that his tax cuts, which will total $1.9 trillion over 10 years, provided crucial support for the economy as it spun into a recession and was then further weakened by corporate scandals, the Sept. 11 attacks and the cost of fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

whoman69
10-15-2004, 05:14 PM
And this is surprising, why?

The Pedestrian
10-15-2004, 05:32 PM
War costs money, and paying for a war leads to higher debt; HOWEVER, it's better that we save the millions of future generations than sit here and worry about a national debt that is better off being high. As Alexander Hamilton would've agreed with, it's best if we make sure that the national debt is so large that people don't praise/condem whoever's in office when we cross the $0 mark.

the Talking Can
10-15-2004, 05:34 PM
War costs money, and paying for a war leads to higher debt; HOWEVER, it's better that we save the millions of future generations than sit here and worry about a national debt that is better off being high. As Alexander Hamilton would've agreed with, it's best if we make sure that the national debt is so large that people don't praise/condem whoever's in office when we cross the $0 mark.

you melted my brane....

The Pedestrian
10-15-2004, 05:41 PM
you melted my brane....

What a fantastic and mature rebutal....no, seriously, that's really a great answer.

:shake:

MonicaLewinski
10-15-2004, 05:45 PM
you melted my brane....

Quite sad that you can't follow Slayer, especially when he made sense this time.

KCWolfman
10-15-2004, 05:50 PM
Damn, that GWB!!!

We really need to vote in Kerry for fiscal responsibility

And in fact, several news organizations have said that Kerry is overpromising, most recently a Washington Post story Feb 29. The Post said Kerry is proposing to spend at least $165 billion more on new programs in the next four years than his tax plan would pay for. Kerry disputed that, saying the Post failed to account for his plan to save $139 billion by repealing Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit, and overestimated what Kerry planned to spend -- temporarily, he said -- to stimulate the economy.

But Kerry hasn't yet shown in detail how he would close the gap between his spending promises and his somewhat vague promise to repeal portions of Bush's tax cuts.

Kerry's health-care plan alone would cost $895 billion over 10 years, according to the Thorpe study , which Kerry has accepted. And it's not clear how that would be paid for.

Patriot 21
10-15-2004, 05:55 PM
you melted my brane....

Obviously. ROFL

MadProphetMargin
10-15-2004, 07:54 PM
Good thing this debt will never bite us in the ass!

Deficits don't matter! Tomorrow never comes!

KCWolfman
10-15-2004, 07:59 PM
Good thing this debt will never bite us in the ass!

Deficits don't matter! Tomorrow never comes!
He said while voting for 895 billion dollars in taxed healthcare.

Hydrae
10-15-2004, 08:49 PM
He said while voting for 895 billion dollars in taxed healthcare.


Do you really think he has a chance of getting that through a Republican controlled Congress? Talk is pretty cheap.

But on the other hand, what is happening right now with the budget problems have already occurred under the current administration, what is to make us think it won't continue another 4 years?

DanT
10-15-2004, 09:02 PM
This story was one of the items in the www.cato.org Daily Dispatch today. That item linked the following report from March of this year, whose Executive Summary is quoted. The Cato Institute is a libertarian think-tank.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-087es.html

The Republican Spending Explosion

by Veronique de Rugy


Veronique de Rugy is a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.



Executive Summary


When the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, they promised to eliminate the deficit and reduce wasteful spending. For several years, the GOP partly upheld its commitment by modestly curtailing spending growth and balancing the budget.

Unfortunately, the balanced budgets of the late 1990s created an "easy money" mindset in Congress, which began a spending spree that continues unabated today. Total federal outlays will rise 29 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2005 according to the president's fiscal year 2005 budget released in February. Real discretionary spending increases in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004 are three of the five biggest annual increases in the last 40 years. Large spending increases have been the principal cause of the government's return to massive budget deficits.

Although defense spending has increased in response to the war on terrorism, President Bush has made little attempt to restrain nondefense spending to offset the higher Pentagon budget. Nondefense discretionary outlays will increase about 36 percent during President Bush's first term in office. Congress has failed to contain the administration's overspending and has added new spending of its own. Republicans have clearly forfeited any claim of being the fiscally responsible party in Washington.

Looking ahead, Republicans need to rediscover the reforming spirit that they brought to Washington after the landmark 1994 congressional elections. Fiscally conservative Democrats should challenge big-spending Republicans and work to cut unneeded programs from both the defense and nondefense parts of the budget.

In command of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, Republicans are primarily responsible for the current budget mess, and it is Republicans who have the power to pare back spending to get the federal budget under control once again.

DanT
10-15-2004, 09:06 PM
Do you really think he has a chance of getting that through a Republican controlled Congress? Talk is pretty cheap.

But on the other hand, what is happening right now with the budget problems have already occurred under the current administration, what is to make us think it won't continue another 4 years?

The Cato Institue's Doug Bandow wrote an interesting article about divided government that appeared in the April 20 issue of Fortune this year.

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/bandow-040420.html

April 20, 2004


The Conservative Case for Voting Democratic


by Doug Bandow


Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.


Republicans have long claimed to be fiscal tightwads and railed against deficit spending. But this year big-spending George W. Bush and the GOP Congress turned a budget surplus into a $477 billion deficit. There are few programs at which they have not thrown money: massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork-barrel projects, dubious homeland-security grants, expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, even new foreign-aid programs. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II."


Complaints about Republican profligacy have led the White House to promise to mend its ways. But Bush's latest budget combines accounting flim-flam with unenforceable promises. So how do we put Uncle Sam on a sounder fiscal basis?


Vote Democratic.


Democrats obviously are no pikers when it comes to spending. But the biggest impetus for higher spending is partisan uniformity, not partisan identity. Give either party complete control of government, and the Treasury vaults are quickly emptied. Neither Congress nor the President wants to tell the other no. Both are desperate to prove they can "govern"—which means creating new programs and spending more money. But share power between parties, and out of principle or malice they check each other. Even if a President Kerry proposed more spending than would a President Bush, a GOP Congress would appropriate less. That's one reason the Founders believed in the separation of powers.


Consider the record. William Niskanen, former acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has put together a fascinating analysis of government spending since 1953. Real federal outlays grew fastest, 4.8% annually, in the Kennedy-Johnson years, with Congress under Democratic control. The second-fastest rise, 4.4%, occurred with George W. Bush during Republican rule. The third-biggest spending explosion, 3.7%, was during the Carter administration, a time of Democratic control. In contrast, the greatest fiscal stringency, 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years. The second-best period of fiscal restraint, 0.9%, was in the Clinton era. Next came the Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, and Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%. All were years of shared partisan control.


Bush officials argue that it is unfair to count military spending, but Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan also faced international challenges that impeded their domestic plans. Moreover, if you do strip out military spending and consider only the domestic record, GOP chief executives emerge in an even worse light. In terms of real domestic discretionary outlays, which are most easily controlled, the biggest spender in the past 40 years is George W. Bush, with expenditure racing ahead 8.2% annually, according to Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. No. 2 on the list is Gerald Ford, at 8%. No. 3 is Richard Nixon. At least the latter two, in contrast to Bush, faced hostile Congresses.


Given the generally woeful record of Republican Presidents, the best combination may be a Democratic chief executive and Republican legislature. It may also be the only combination that's feasible, since in 2004 at least, it will be difficult to overturn Republican congressional control: Redistricting has encouraged electoral stasis in the House, while far more Democrats face reelection in the Senate. Thus, the only way we can realistically keep Congress and the President in separate political hands is to vote for John Kerry in November.


Returning to divided government would yield another benefit as well: Greater opportunity for reform, whether of the budget process, tort liability, Medicare, Social Security, taxes, or almost anything else. Niskanen has observed that the prospects for change "will be dependent on more bipartisan support than now seems likely in a united Republican government." He points out that tax reform occurred in 1986, and agriculture, telecommunications, and welfare reform a decade later, all under divided government.


The deficit can be cut in half if Congress "is willing to make tough choices," says President Bush. But GOP legislators are likely to make tough choices only if he is replaced by a Democrat. History teaches us that divided government equals fiscal probity, so vote Democratic for President if you want responsible budgeting in Washington.


This article originally appeared in Fortune on April 20, 2004.

KCWolfman
10-15-2004, 09:23 PM
Do you really think he has a chance of getting that through a Republican controlled Congress? Talk is pretty cheap.

But on the other hand, what is happening right now with the budget problems have already occurred under the current administration, what is to make us think it won't continue another 4 years?
It will no matter which is elected. See factcheck.org. Both candidates will raise the deficit to trillion and then some.

WilliamTheIrish
10-15-2004, 09:25 PM
It's like a helium filled baloon that slips out of your hand.

Just keeps going up and up and up.....

the Talking Can
10-15-2004, 10:15 PM
so, the president isn't going to be held accountable for the budget or historic debt

he isn't held accountable for their being no WMDs

he isn't held accountable for his terrible planning regarding Iraq

he isn't held accountable for having negative job growth during his presidency

just what can we hold the president accountable for? speaking in complete sentences?

f'in a.....too bad he didn't volunteer to fight in Vietnam, then republicans would hate him for sure...

the Talking Can
10-15-2004, 10:15 PM
It's like a helium filled baloon that slips out of your hand.

Just keeps going up and up and up.....

except that it didn't during Clinton's term...go figure

KCWolfman
10-15-2004, 10:21 PM
except that it didn't during Clinton's term...go figure
Because congress stopped him?


I honestly can't believe any liberal would post anything regarding the debt while supporting John Kerry. You do realize that Kerry's "plan" takes us to almost the exact same trillion dollar figure as Bush's does, right?

DanT
10-15-2004, 10:23 PM
It will no matter which is elected. See factcheck.org. Both candidates will raise the deficit to trillion and then some.

Where on factcheck.org ?

KCWolfman
10-15-2004, 10:33 PM
Where on factcheck.org ?
The KC Star linked it in their article on Oct 8.

Here is the Star quote which used the same point of reference that factcheck did, the Concord Coalition:

Twice, moderator Charles Gibson asked the candidates to explain how they'd cut the deficit in half in five years, as both have promised. Neither Bush nor Kerry answered. The bipartisan Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group, said that using Kerry's numbers for his proposals, he would raise the total deficit to $1.27 trillion by 2014. Bush's proposals would raise it to $1.33 trillion, it said.

KC Star on Deficit (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9874066.htm)

DanT
10-15-2004, 11:01 PM
The KC Star linked it in their article on Oct 8.

Here is the Star quote which used the same point of reference that factcheck did, the Concord Coalition:

Twice, moderator Charles Gibson asked the candidates to explain how they'd cut the deficit in half in five years, as both have promised. Neither Bush nor Kerry answered. The bipartisan Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group, said that using Kerry's numbers for his proposals, he would raise the total deficit to $1.27 trillion by 2014. Bush's proposals would raise it to $1.33 trillion, it said.

KC Star on Deficit (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/9874066.htm)

Thanks for the link, KCWolfman. I was able to find the Concord Coalition report from October 7 that discusses both candidates major proposals. Of course, they'd have to get them passed by Congress.
Here's the link to the news release announcing the report.
http://www.concordcoalition.org/releases/041007release.htm

DanT
10-15-2004, 11:11 PM
Here are the numbers (minus the footnotes) from the tables on pages 3 and 4 of the Concord Coalition report, whose URL is on my previous post:


Senator Kerry’s major proposals (Totals for FY2005-2014)
Tax provisions
Repeal upper income tax cuts $278 billion (adds revenue)
Reform estate tax $8 billion (adds revenue)
Extend “middle class tax cuts” -$508 billion
Health care tax credits -$177 billion
College opportunity tax credit -$71 billion
Energy and environment -$16 billion
Jobs tax credit -$12 billion

Subtotal taxes -$498 billion

Spending
Health care plan $476 billion
Education $155 billion
Veterans and military families $55 billion
State and local aid $25 billion
Add 40,000 troops $60 billion

Subtotal spending $771 billion

Total deficit increase $1,269 billion ($1.27 trillion)*


President Bush’s major proposals (Totals for FY 2005-2014)
Tax provisions
Extend all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts -$1,052 billion
New tax cuts in FY05 budget - $157 billion
Agenda for America tax cuts - $35 billion

Subtotal tax cuts -$1,244 billion

Spending
Refundable health tax credit $54 billion
Other mandatory spending in FY05 budget -$10 billion
Agenda for America programs $38 billion
Subtotal spending $82 billion

Total deficit increase $1,326 billion ($1.33 trillion)*

unlurking
10-15-2004, 11:50 PM
Because congress stopped him?


I honestly can't believe any liberal would post anything regarding the debt while supporting John Kerry. You do realize that Kerry's "plan" takes us to almost the exact same trillion dollar figure as Bush's does, right?
I think that was the point of the article. Having a split legislative/executive partisanship provides checks and balances in regards to spending.


Edit:
At least the article DanT posted that is.

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 08:07 AM
I think that was the point of the article. Having a split legislative/executive partisanship provides checks and balances in regards to spending.


Edit:
At least the article DanT posted that is.
So you vote for someone knowing he is lying about his programs he will never get passed?

unlurking
10-16-2004, 11:45 AM
So you vote for someone knowing he is lying about his programs he will never get passed?
Of course not. I already stated I am voting Badnarik.

However, if I had voted for Bush for his first term, I would have voted for someone lying to me about one of the biggest issues I am concerned with.

Bush said he would reform SS on his run for the first term and didn't. If I voted for him now, then I would be guilty of the accusation you swing.

If I were to follow the advice of the article and vote Kerry, I still would not be guilty of the accusation you swing as I would be voting the Executive branch to be held in check by the Legislative branch. Not for someone lying, but knowing that the other branch would STOP HIM form fulfilling his promoises.

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 11:48 AM
Of course not. I already stated I am voting Badnarik.

However, if I had voted for Bush for his first term, I would have voted for someone lying to me about one of the biggest issues I am concerned with.

Bush said he would reform SS on his run for the first term and didn't. If I voted for him now, then I would be guilty of the accusation you swing.

If I were to follow the advice of the article and vote Kerry, I still would not be guilty of the accusation you swing as I would be voting the Executive branch to be held in check by the Legislative branch. Not for someone lying, but knowing that the other branch would STOP HIM form fulfilling his promoises.
So you are stating he is not smart enough to know he can't get the things he promised passed?

Or

He knows he can't get them passed, but he doesn't give a damn as long as he is POTUS?


Either way, it belittles the candidate.

unlurking
10-16-2004, 12:22 PM
So you are stating he is not smart enough to know he can't get the things he promised passed?

Or

He knows he can't get them passed, but he doesn't give a damn as long as he is POTUS?


Either way, it belittles the candidate.
So, have you COMPLETELY ignored the stats in the article?

Or are you so NAIVE that you think the candidates are always telling the truth.

Belittles the candidate? ROFL

OF COURSE IT DOES!!!!!

It says I DON"T TRUST YOU!!!!

Which is why we have THREE BRANCHES of government!!!

WE AREN"T SUPPOSED TO TRUST ONE MAN!!!!

What the hell are you trying to argue?!?!?!

You STILL have not commented on the stats from that article that PROVE that historically the MOST FISCAL presidential terms have been during opposite party control of congress.

Are you saying this is a bad thing? Or just trying to argue stupid point outside the discussion?

NewChief
10-16-2004, 03:18 PM
The Cato Institue's Doug Bandow wrote an interesting article about divided government that appeared in the April 20 issue of Fortune this year.




I posted a similar article from Bandow on here a while back, and he was dismissed as trivial and unimportant.
:shrug:

unlurking
10-16-2004, 03:36 PM
I posted a similar article from Bandow on here a while back, and he was dismissed as trivial and unimportant.
:shrug:
I must have missed it.

But don't feel bad, it appears I'm the only one that read this one. That or I'm the only one that doesn't consider it trivial and unimportant.

Boozer
10-16-2004, 03:37 PM
I posted a similar article from Bandow on here a while back, and he was dismissed as trivial and unimportant.
:shrug:

I've also advanced the idea that divided government is the only way to get fiscal sanity. It dropped without much comment, as wingtards from both sides (mainly the right) have no grounds whatsoever for any opposition.

KCWolfman
10-16-2004, 04:32 PM
So, have you COMPLETELY ignored the stats in the article?

Or are you so NAIVE that you think the candidates are always telling the truth.

Belittles the candidate? ROFL

OF COURSE IT DOES!!!!!

It says I DON"T TRUST YOU!!!!

Which is why we have THREE BRANCHES of government!!!

WE AREN"T SUPPOSED TO TRUST ONE MAN!!!!

What the hell are you trying to argue?!?!?!

You STILL have not commented on the stats from that article that PROVE that historically the MOST FISCAL presidential terms have been during opposite party control of congress.

Are you saying this is a bad thing? Or just trying to argue stupid point outside the discussion?
I guess you guys just get more up in arms than I do regarding spending.

I heard the exact same "THE SKY IS FALLING" arguments during the Reagan years - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REPS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE AND SENATE, and nothing horrible happened afterward.

I am more concerned about international policy than domestic when it comes to the POTUS. The POTUS actually does very little regarding economic policy, no matter how badly either candidate wants us to believe otherwise.

DanT
10-16-2004, 04:40 PM
I guess you guys just get more up in arms than I do regarding spending.

I heard the exact same "THE SKY IS FALLING" arguments during the Reagan years - ESPECIALLY WHEN THE REPS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE AND SENATE, and nothing horrible happened afterward.

I am more concerned about international policy than domestic when it comes to the POTUS. The POTUS actually does very little regarding economic policy, no matter how badly either candidate wants us to believe otherwise.

If you mean by "the Reagan years" the time in which Ronald Reagan was President, which was 1981-1989, the House was controlled by Democrats.

http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/leaders.html

Congress, Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Term
80th Charles A. Halleck (R-IN) Sam Rayburn (D-TX) (1947-1949)
81st John W. McCormack (D-MA) Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (R-MA) (1949-1951)
82nd John W. McCormack (D-MA) Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (R-MA) (1951-1953)
83rd Charles A. Halleck (R-IN) Sam Rayburn (D-TX) (1953-1955)
84th John W. McCormack (D-MA) Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (R-MA) (1955-1957)
85th John W. McCormack (D-MA) Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (R-MA) (1957-1959)
86th John W. McCormack (D-MA) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN) (1959-1961)
87th John W. McCormack (D-MA) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN) (1961-1962)
87th Carl B. Albert (D-OK) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN) (1962-1963)
88th Carl B. Albert (D-OK) Charles A. Halleck (R-IN) (1963-1965)
89th Carl B. Albert (D-OK) Gerald R. Ford (R-MI) (1965-1967)
90th Carl B. Albert (D-OK) Gerald R. Ford (R-MI) (1967-1969)
91st Carl B. Albert (D-OK) Gerald R. Ford (R-MI) (1969-1971)
92nd Hale Boggs (D-LA) Gerald R. Ford (R-MI) (1971-1973)
93rd Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D-MA) Gerald R. Ford (R-MI) -1973
93rd Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D-MA) John J. Rhodes (R-AZ) (1974-1975)
94th Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D-MA) John J. Rhodes (R-AZ) (1975-1977)
95th James C. Wright, Jr. (D-TX) John J. Rhodes (R-AZ) (1977-1979)
96th James C. Wright, Jr. (D-TX) John J. Rhodes (R-AZ) (1979-1981)
97th James C. Wright, Jr. (D-TX) Robert H. Michel (R-IL) (1981-1983)
98th James C. Wright, Jr. (D-TX) Robert H. Michel (R-IL) (1983-1984)
99th James C. Wright, Jr. (D-TX) Robert H. Michel (R-IL) (1985-1986)
100th Thomas S. Foley (D-WA) Robert H. Michel (R-IL) (1987-1988)
101st Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) Robert H. Michel (R-IL) (1989-1990)
102nd Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) Robert H. Michel (R-IL) (1991-1992)
103rd Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) Robert H. Michel (R-IL) (1993-1994)
104th Richard K. Armey (R-TX) Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) (1995-1996)
105th Richard K. Armey (R-TX) Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) (1997-1998)
106th Richard K. Armey (R-TX) Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) (1999-2000)
107th Richard K. Armey (R-TX) Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) (2001-2002)
108th Tom Delay (R-TX) Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (2003-Present)

DanT
10-16-2004, 04:44 PM
Here's the breakdown of the Senate since the 97th Congress:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

99th Congress (1985-1987)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (47 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100th Congress (1987-1989)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

101st Congress (1989-1991)

Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

102nd Congress (1991-1993)

Majority Party: Democrat (56 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (44 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

103rd Congress (1993-1995)

Majority Party: Democrat (57 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (43 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party division changed to 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans after the June 5, 1993 election of Kay B. Hutchison (R-TX).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

104th Congress (1995-1997)

Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105th Congress (1997-1999)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

106th Congress (1999-2001)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

Note: As the 106th Congress began, the division was 55 Republican seats and 45 Democratic seats, but this changed to 54-45 on July 13, 1999 when Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched from the Republican party to Independent status. On November 1, 1999, Smith announced his return to the Republican party, making the division once more 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. Following the death of Senator Paul Coverdell (R-GA) on July 18, 2000, the balance shifted again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when the governor appointed Zell Miller, a Democrat, to fill the vacancy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107th Congress (2001-2003)

Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

________

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

______

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

Total Seats: 100

_____

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

unlurking
10-16-2004, 04:47 PM
And according to the article posted, the Reagan era was the 4th best in fiscal responsibility. Not that there wasn't FUD being slung about the deficit then, it seems there is always FUD slinging, but there is a difference between the Reagan expenditures and Bush's.

I can understand thar foreign policy is more important to you, and don't want to infer anything bad against that. I guess that fiscal responsibility is just one of the main areas I lean right in and feel somewhat betrayed by this administration.

As far as foreign policy to me, I guess I don't like either as I'm more of an isolationist. I will not try and argue that Kerry is better than Bush in that area.